Sugarbeet Grower magazine February 2011

My Landof Opportunity

ook at your land and you see more than soil. You see opportunity.

We see it in our sugarbeet seed. Strong early season vigor, exceptional stand counts, consistently reliable yields and solid revenue per acre —they're all engineered right in.

Your land has always done well by you. Do your best by your land with SESVanderHave.

oL

(877) 373-8115www.svdhbeets.com

— Feature Articles —Variable-Rate Seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Report on three years of Red River Valley trials

A ‘Groovy’ Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Michigan growers use wide-track tractor in narrow-row beets

Shank Depth for Zone Tillage in Beets . . . . . . . . . . 12Results from three-year Nebraska study

Sugar, HFCS & Ethanol in Canada: An Overview . . 16A look at the nation’s sweetener industry dynamics

— Regular Pages —

Dateline: Washington . . . . . . . . . . . 8Tucson, Roundup Ready, Crop Insurance

Write Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Counting the minutes . . .

30 Years Ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Excerpts from our February 1981 issue

Around the Industry . . . . . . . . . . . 19Who, what & where it’s happening

— Front Cover —

Could varying seeding rates byfield productivity zones be inyour future? See page 4 for asummary of recent research.

Photo: Don Lilleboe

Page11

Page12

Page 4

THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011 3

‘Serving The Nation’s SugarbeetCommunity Since 1963’

Volume 50 Number 2February 2011

Sugar Publications4601 16th Ave. N.Fargo, ND 58102

Phone: (701) 476-2111Fax: (701) 476-2182

E-Mail: [email protected] Site: www.sugarpub.com

Publisher: Sugar Publications

General Manager & Editor: Don Lilleboe

Advertising Manager: Heidi Wieland (701) 476-2003

Graphics: Forum Communications Printing

The Sugarbeet Grower is published sixtimes annually (January, February, March,April/May, July/August, November/December)by Sugar Publications, a division of ForumCommunications Printing.

North American sugarbeet producers re-ceive the magazine on a complimentary basis.Annual subscription rates are $12.00 domes-tic and $18.00 for foreign subscribers.

Advertising in The Sugarbeet Growerdoes not necessarily imply endorsement of aparticular product or service by the publisher.

Visit Our Website!Now Updated & Expanded!

www.sugarpub.com

Variable-rate fertilizer applicationhas become commonplace among

sugarbeet growers, with the result gen-erally being more-efficient use of fertil-izer inputs, more-consistent beet yieldand quality across fields — and better

per-acre revenue.How about variable-rate seeding?

Could changing your in-row spacingand plant population from zone to zonewithin a given field translate intomore-efficient use of a key input (seed)

and, at harvest, produce more tonnageand/or improved crop quality?

That was the question addressed ina Red River Valley study conductedover the past three growing seasons.The project, led by Lynn Dusek, Ameri-can Crystal Sugar Company Moorheaddistrict agriculturist and member ofthe cooperative’s precision ag team,sought to determine optimum plantpopulations for different managementzones within several commercial fields.Concurrently, it examined optimumseed spacing trends for high, interme-diate and low productivity zones.

Working with cooperating Ameri-can Crystal growers, Dusek and hisgroup* established studies at six loca-tions within the Moorhead, Crookstonand Hillsboro** factory districts. Allfields were planted in 22-inch rows,and the growers used recommendedagronomic and pest management prac-tices. They likewise used their ownharvesters (equipped with yield moni-tors), while quality samples were hand-drawn for each treatment within eachestablished productivity zone.

Productivity zones were establishedfor seed spacing treatments. The zonesin the Moorhead and Crookston districtfields were based on previous cropyield maps and satellite imagery.“High” productivity zones were denotedby green; “intermediate” zones by yel-low and “low” by red.

What were the results from thethree study years? Harvest plant

stands for the Moorhead and Crook-ston fields are summarized in the tableat left. Three-year trends for recover-able sugar per ton (RST), recoverablesugar per acre (RSA) and revenue per

Location & Year

Moorhead / 2008

Moorhead / 2010

Crookston / 2009

Crookston / 2010

In-RowSeed Spacing

5.5”4.5”3.5”

5.5”4.5”3.5”

5.1”4.9”3.9”

5.6”4.5”3.5”

‘High’ Productivity

Zones

169196252

147177238

178200245

198241293

‘Intermediate’ Productivity

Zones

144202218

147197230

137177234

192228283

‘Low’ Productivity

Zones

142174207

145167228

164182238

192233282

— Harvest Plant Stands —

* Other American Crystal personnel in-volved in this project were Curtis Funk,agriculturist in the Crookston district;Joe Hastings, agriculturist in the Hills-boro district; and Allan Cattanach, thecooperative’s general agronomist.

** Moorhead data are from 2008 and2010; the 2009 Moorhead site washailed out. Crookston data are from2009 and 2010. The 2010 Hillsborostudy used productivity zones based ontopographical mapping. Since theHillsboro data represent only one year,those results are not discussed here.

Left: This image from a 2008 Moorheadsugarbeet field shows variable-rateseeding plot yield data (horizontal strip) overlaid on productivity zones that weredeveloped based on satellite imageryand previous crop yield data.

Variable-Rate Seeding

Progress Report: Three Years of

Trials in the Red River Valley

Credit: American

Crystal Sug

ar

4 THE SUGARBEET GROWER February 2011

CRYSTAL SUGARBEET SEED distributed by: ACH Seeds Inc. 1.877.224.7333 Crystal Beet Seed 1.218.236.4788

acre are depicted on the three graphsat left.

Here’s the three-year bottom line:• The optimum in-row seed spacing

varied by up to two inches, dependingon productivity zone. Specifically, theoptimum spacing for the “low” (red)zones was 3.5 to 3.9 inches; for the “in-termediate” zones (yellow), it was 4.3-4.6 inches; and for the “high” (green)productivity zones, 4.9-5.5 inches.

• Plant populations, as would be ex-pected, followed a similar track. Theoptimum population in the “low” zoneswas in the 47,-55,000 plants-per-acrerange. For the “intermediate” zones, itwas 42,-47,000; and for the “high”zones, optimum range was 35,-42,000.

• Harvest losses were greatest withthe higher plant populations that wereneeded in order to maximize yields inthe “low” productivity zones.

• The best recoverable sugar perton (RST) in the “high” (green) produc-tivity zones came with the wider in-rowspacings, while RST was fairly stableacross in-row spacings for the “inter-mediate” and “low” zones (Figure 1).

• Recoverable sugar per acre (RSA)differences were quite dramatic whenin-row seed spacing was modified. AsFigure 2 shows, RSA improved signifi-cantly with the wider spacings for the“high” productivity zones, while it wasbest in the “low” (red) zones with thenarrower spacing.

• Per-acre revenue across the foursites for which data were compiled(2008 and 2010 for Moorhead and 2009and 2010 for Crookston) also showedsignificant differences (Figure 3). The“high” productivity zones did signifi-cantly better with the wider in-rowspacings, while the opposite was truefor the “low” zones. Revenue from the“intermediate” zones also trended up-ward as seed spacing was widened.

Dusek says the results to date fromthe variable-rate seeding trials are

definitely encouraging. “We’re findingconsistent trends,” he notes. “The re-sults seem to be tracking well withsatellite imagery and yield mappingdata.” While it’s still early in theprocess, the sugar company agricultur-ist believes variable-rate seeding couldone day be a common practice thathelps enhance both a field’s productiv-ity and the grower’s bottom line. Andit could take on added dimensions,such as split-planting of different seedvarieties within the field, depending onthe productivity zone.

“There is promise,” Dusek affirms,“and we have plans to continue thesetypes of studies.” — Don Lilleboe �

Fig. 1. Rec. Sugar/Ton Trend, Three-Year Av., Moorhead & Crookston

Fig. 2. Rec. Sugar/Acre Trend, Three-Year Av., Moorhead & Crookston

Fig. 3. Revenue/Acre Trend, Three-Year Av., Moorhead & Crookston


The fungicide you’ve always wanted is fi nally within reach.

©2011 Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, 410 Swing Road, Greensboro, NC 27409. Important: Always read and follow label instructions before buying or using Syngenta products.The instructions contain important conditions of sale, including limitations of warranty and remedy. Inspire XT is not currently registered for sale or use in all states. Please checkwith your state or local extension service before buying or using this product. Inspire® and the Syngenta logo are registered trademarks of a Syngenta Group Company. Syngenta Customer Center: 1-866-SYNGENT(A) (796-4368). www.FarmAssist.com MW 1SUG1005-P1 2/11

There’s no better partner for your sugarbeet disease management program than Inspire® XT fungicide. Trusted the world over, Inspire XT is proven to deliver long-lasting control of Cercospora leaf spot, powdery mildew and other damaging diseases. And as part of your overall spray program, Inspire XT can help sustain fungicide effectiveness and manage resistance. Top of the class.

Dateline:Washington

ByLuther Markwart

ExecutiveVice President

American Sugarbeet

Growers Assn.

— Tucson, Arizona— The hearts and minds of our na-

tion and the world have been focusedon Tucson since that fateful andtragic morning of January 8. Asgrower-leaders from our beet grow-ing regions arrive in Tucson for ourannual meeting (February 6-8), ourthoughts and prayers continue forthe fallen victims of this senselesstragedy.

Our board of directors was look-ing forward to a breakfast meetingwith Congresswoman Giffords to ex-press our thanks for her support of astrong domestic sugar industry inthe last farm bill, and to give her theopportunity to meet those growerswho help supply the sugar needs ofher constituents and our nation. Wesalute her service to our country andthe burdens of sacrifice that she andher family must now endure.

— Roundup Ready Beets —We hope that USDA will have an-

nounced by the end of January whataction they will take regarding theplanting of Roundup Ready® sugar-beets for 2011. Since the public com-menting period ended on December6, 2010, APHIS staff at USDA hasworked very hard and thoughtfully toaddress issues that have been raisedand to finalize the draft Environmen-tal Assessment for planting RoundupReady beets this spring.

On December 21, 2010, the NinthCircuit Court of Appeals extended itsstay (pending appeal) of Judge Jef-frey White’s November 30 injunctionrequiring destruction of sugarbeetstecklings (seedlings) currently beinggrown under permits from the U.S.Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)Animal and Plant Health InspectionService (APHIS). The stecklings areintended for research and breedingpurposes, as well as for basic seedand hybrid seed production for 2012and future years.

The Appeals Court consolidated

the permit litigation with the appealof Judge White’s August 13, 2010, de-cision vacating the deregulation ofbiotech sugarbeets, and expedited thebriefing and hearing schedule so thatthe appeals can be heard on Febru-ary 15, 2011. To allow for considera-tion of the appeals, the stay of JudgeWhite’s injunction has been extendedto February 28 or such other time asthe Ninth Circuit orders.

The beet sugar industry’s grow-ers, processors, technology providersand seed producers are pleased thatthe Court of Appeals will now havesufficient opportunity to consider rel-evant legal precedents and unre-butted evidence that the planting ofthese permitted steckling fields is au-thorized by law and would cause noharm. We are hopeful that this expe-dited appellate process will bringmore certainty to our industry earlyin 2011.

— Crop Insurance —On January 11, a team of sugar-

beet grower representatives met withRisk Management Administration(RMA) officials to discuss the follow-ing four key issues.

1) The initial price election forthe 2011 crop was established in lateNovember at $41.50 per ton ($43 inCalifornia). We clearly believe thatthis price is too low and asked that

the estimate be revised significantlyupward (upper $40s range). A finaldecision by RMA will be made bymid-February.

2) The replant coverage will be1.5 times the price election for 2011.While this is an improvement of ahalf ton over the 2010 crop, it re-mains inadequate to cover growers’actual replant costs. The ASGA, inconjunction with your state or localassociation, will be working to getmuch better third-party cost num-bers to clearly justify higher replantcompensation.

3) RMA also needs to work on thequality adjustment factor in the in-surance policy. The quality deduc-tions in the FCIC insurance policyare often much smaller than those ingrower-cooperative contracts, result-ing in under-coverage.

4) Finally, field piles, or “clamps,”have been used to increase harvestefficiencies and reduce costs — andcould ultimately be very helpful inreducing losses for the grower, thecooperative, insurance agents andthe government. Statistical informa-tion is being compiled on existingclamps for RMA to digest in themonths ahead. Under current provi-sion of the policy, sugarbeets are con-sidered “harvested” once they aretopped and lifted.

— Damaged Cane Crop —The sub-freezing temperatures in

Florida in mid-December damagedsugarcane that was being harvested.Damage assessment usually takessome time to evaluate, and it willlikely be late January before accu-rate assessments can be made.

In the January WASDE report,USDA estimated and made an initialreduction of 100,000 tons of rawsugar for the 2010/11 crop. With pro-duction and inventories of raw sugarcane stockpiled early in the year,there is time to determine whethermore sugar is needed once all the fac-tors are adequately assessed. �

We are hopeful that the expedited appellate process will bring more certainty toour industry early in 2011.

The quality deductions in theFCIC insurance policy are oftenmuch smaller than those in

grower-cooperative contracts,resulting in under-coverage.


I’m sitting at a quilt shopWaiting for my wife.

I don’t think I’ve been here yetFor more than half my life.

This one seems a little longerThan the stop we made before.

But I’m quite sure it’s only beenOne or two days more.

It’s fun to see the seasons change,To watch the flowers grow.

Soon the pumpkins will come down,Then Christmas lights will glow.

But I sit here patientlyAs she fingers every swatch.

It’s good I brought along an extraBattery for my watch.

I brought along some bookwork. I finished up my tax.

I’ll still make the deadlineIf I send it off by fax.

I’m sure there is new merchandiseShe has never seen before.

Even though to me it looksLike every other store.

I know more things than shoppingCome into the mix.

It’s more than checking every boltTo get a cotton fix.

She needs to meet with other galsWho share the same affliction.

Except that this group therapyHelps promote addiction.

Here she comes with half a boltAnd an extra quarter,

A rotary cutter, yellow thread,Some piping for a border.

I help her load her packages,I ask if she had fun.

I say that we should head for homeIf she is sure that she is done.

“Just because it’s on the wayLet’s hit the John Deere store.

I know that it will only takeA couple minutes more.”

All Minutes Are Not Equal

David Kragnes farms near Felton, Minn.He is a former chairman of AmericanCrystal Sugar Co., and currently serveson the board of directors of CoBank.

WriteField By David Kragnes

49th International Sugarbeet Institute

March 16 & 17FargodomeFargo, N.D.— Speaker —Luther MarkwartExec. Vice President

American Sugarbeet Growers Assn.

North America’s LargestSugarbeet Trade Show!

Doors Open at 9:00 a.m. Both Days


BIG-BEAR

-Tiger

-Maus

Root maggots, springtails on 2011sugarbeet insect watch list

Control tradeoffsWarnings about challenging insect populations will focusdecisions on how to control critical insects in the monthsahead.

On one side of the decision equation are superiorperformance and lower cost with soil insecticides. On theother: the planting-timing convenience of seed treatments.

Boetel says the best choice isn’t clear-cut at lower insectpressures. But when root maggot pressures are high, soilinsecticides tend to perform better and deliver more dollarsto the bottom line.

A three-year NDSU study published last year showedthat under moderately high root maggot pressure, yield and

sucrose recovery from Counter® insecticide treatmentswere significantly higher than from seed treatments.

Bottom-line gross returns from a high labeled rate ofCounter were $155/acre better than the top seed treatment.“Growers in the heavily infested areas often use a moreaggressive approach at planting with a granular soilinsecticide,” he says. “Generally in our research we haveseen that the granular materials are more efficacious forroot maggot under heavy infestations.”

In areas with heavy infestations, Boetel recommendscoming back with an in-season postemergenceinsecticide treatment timed for peak fly activity, regardlessof the planting-time treatment.

Growers opt forCounterFor David Benedict and GlenHultin, NDSU research onsugarbeet root maggots andspringtails confirmed theirdecision to rely on Countersoil insecticide to controlbeet insects.

“When you need a gun,you might as well get thebiggest gun you can—that’s what we’ve got withCounter for root maggots, springtails and wireworm,”says Benedict, who farms near Sabin, MN. “Counter isthe only at-planting treatment that will take onspringtails. The seed treatments aren’t as good.I don’t want to dive off that cliff.”

Hultin, who farms nearHillsboro, ND, remembershaving fields devastated byroot maggots in the early1990s—and relies onCounter to avoid that experi-ence again. “I rememberharvesting 8 tons/acre inone field,” he says. “For me,using Counter is a no-brainer. It is cheaper andit is better.”

Both Benedict and Hultin have outfitted theirJohn Deere central-fill planters with the electronicallycontrolled SmartBox® closed handling and applicationsystem. “The closed system is two thumbs up,”Benedict says. “It puts out the proper amount nomatter how fast you go.”

With Counter’s new 20G formulation, Hultin canplant about 200 acres of beets with his 24-rowplanter before refilling—typically one fill per day.Benedict’s 36-row system covers about 300 acresbefore refilling.

The Counter 20G formulation, which is availablefor Lock ‘N Load® and SmartBox application systems,improves planting-time efficiency by covering 33%more acres per fill than the previous 15G formulation,points out Elton Hendrickson, technical salesrepresentative for AMVAC Chemical Corp.

For more information on Counter 20G Insecticide andthe SmartBox System, contact Elton Hendrickson [email protected] or call 701-741-5608.

Counter, Lock ‘N Load and SmartBox are registered trademarks ofAMVAC Chemical Corporation.

Don’t bet on 2011 being a repeat ofthe seemingly mild year for sugar-beet insects that occurred in the

Red River Valley in 2010. That’s the advicefrom Dr. Mark Boetel, research and exten-sion entomologist at North Dakota StateUniversity (NDSU).There’s a good chance that sugarbeet

root maggots will be back in force in 2011.The growing problem with springtails isn’t likely to go away, either. As inmost years, wireworms will be a threat to sugarbeet production, too.In reality, the 2010 root maggot infestation was worse than many

growers realize, says Boetel. Evidence of the infestation was covered up

by frequent rains, which allowed beets tocompensate for feeding damage.“This could be a sleeper situation,”

he says. “Fly counts and fall root ratingssuggest that there are plenty of rootmaggots out there to over-winter andinfest the crop in 2011.”Projected high-risk areas for root maggot

infestations in 2011 include Auburn,Glasston, Grafton, Nash and St. Thomas, all in North Dakota. Areas withprojected moderate risk include Cavalier, Minto, Manvel, Oakwood,Reynolds and Thompson, in North Dakota, and Ada, Borup and Euclid,in Minnesota.

New springtail researchSoil insecticides also have a leg upon seed treatments for control ofspringtails. NDSU rates Counterinsecticide as “Excellent” againstspringtails, while seed treatmentproducts get a “Good” rating.

A new three-year NDSU studybears that out that difference.The study showed that at highspringtail pressures, a low labeledrate of Counter insecticideproduced the highest grosseconomic return, $1,012/acre –$105/acre higher than thebest-performing seed treatment.

“Springtails are more difficultto predict than root maggots,”adds Boetel. “In the past 10 years,with wetter springs, springtailshave become more of a regularissue on heavy soils conduciveto their buildup.”

David Benedict Glen Hultin

— Advertisement —

USDA’s January estimate of 2010U.S. sugarbeet production placed

the crop at 31.95 million tons, up frac-tionally from the November forecastand 7% higher than 2009’s output.

Growers in the 10 major sugarbeet-producing states planted 1.17 millionacres of beets this past season, downslightly from the 2009 level. However,harvested area was up a bit from theprevious year at 1.16 million acres. Theestimated average yield of 27.6 tons peracre was 1.7 tons above the 2009 leveland represents a record high.

At nearly 11.8 million tons, Min-nesota again is far and away the na-tion’s leading sugarbeet producingstate. Minnesota’s 2010 output wasabout 1.1 million tons higher than thatof 2009. The state’s average per-acrebeet yield this past season was 3.0 tonsabove the ’09 level.

At nearly 5.7 million tons, NorthDakota was the nation’s second largestproducer of beets this past year. Theaverage yield in the state in 2010 was26.5 tons per acre — 4.5 tons higherthan the 2009 yield.

Record high average yields were setin Minnesota, North Dakota, Coloradoand Wyoming, USDA noted. Colorado’saverage 2010 yield of 29.5 tons per acrewas 2.0 tons higher than the previousyear; the Wyoming average of 27.0 tonswas a half ton higher than that of 2009.

Idaho, at almost 5.3 million tons,and Michigan, at 3.8 million, rankedthird and fourth in production, respec-tively. Five states — California, Col-orado, Idaho, Nebraska and Oregon —had 2010 production levels lower thantheir 2009 counterpart crops.

The nation’s sugarbeet output in2008 was 26.9 million tons.

On the sugarcane side, the JanuaryUSDA report placed the nation’s

2010 cane production (for sugar) at27.85 million tons. That compares with28.5 million the prior season and 26.1million tons in 2008.

“In Louisiana, expectations for abumper crop were diminished when un-usually dry weather conditions ruledthe summer months, resulting in de-creased yields and overall production,”USDA-NASS reported.

Unseasonably cold temperatures inFlorida in December damaged much ofthat state’s unharvested cane crop, withfinal damage assessments not availableas of the time the January USDA esti-mates were being finalized.

The production of sugarcane forseed was estimated at about 1.7 milliontons in 2010, down about 250,000 tonsfrom the 2009 level. �

CaliforniaColoradoIdahoMichiganMinnesotaMontanaNebraskaNorth DakotaOregonWyomingU.S. Total

200925.235.0163.0136.0449.033.652.6218.010.525.6

1,148.5

201025.127.9170.0147.0441.042.547.5214.010.330.4

1,155.7

200943.927.534.324.423.729.824.622.037.626.525.9

201040.029.531.026.026.729.523.826.536.327.027.6

20091,106963

5,5913,31810,6411,0011,2944,796395678

29,783

20101,004823

5,2703,82211,7751,2541,1315,671374821

31,945

Source: USDA-NASS January 2011

Area Harvested Yield Production(1,000 Acres) (Tons/Ac) (1,000 Tons)

— U.S. Sugarbeet Production, 2009 & 2010 —

Updated USDA Crop NumbersJanuary Report Estimates Nation’s 2010Sugarbeet Production at 31.95 Million Tons

2v THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) February 2011

7623 County Road 19Tintah, MN 56583

Phone: (218) 369-2136Fax: (218) 369-2680

Rotary Hoes - 60 to 88 Ft.

All Crop SprayerUp to 2000 Gal. Tank

HIGH-PROFILEBROADCAST SPRAYERS

Boom Width Up to 132 Feet1,000- to 1,500-Gal. Fiberglass Tanks

— Contact Keller Today —

Model 1500

Model 1000

Call todayfor pricing.

Convert yourbandsprayer to a

broadcastsprayer!

V-Plows for JD Planters

The 42nd annual survey* of weedcontrol and production practices

among sugarbeet producers in Min-nesota and eastern North Dakota re-vealed disease — particularlyRhizoctonia and Aphanomyces — to beby far the most serious productionproblem during the 2010 growing sea-son. Among survey respondents, 53%said those two diseases were their mostserious problem. Another 5% listedRhizomania and 3% listed Cercosporaleafspot.

As has been the case since RoundupReady® beets have been available togrowers, weeds ranked low on the listof number-one production issues in theregion’s beet fields. Only 6% of the2010 survey respondents placed weedsas their top issue. That follows on theheels of 7% in 2009 and 30% in 2008.

Weeds consistently ranked as thetop production problem in past years.For instance, 46% of 2007 survey re-spondents placed weeds at the top oftheir problem areas; in 2001 and 2002,respectively, 52 and 53% did so.

Emergence and plant stand was thebiggest issue for just 5% of the 2010crop year survey respondents. Thatwas down from 21% in both 2008 and2009. “No Problem” was the answerfrom 14% of this year’s respondents,while “Weather” garnered 8%.

The 268 growers responding to the2010 production practices survey to-

gether accounted for 21% of the nearly653,000 acres of sugarbeets plantedacross the Upper Midwest region lastyear in the combined American Crystal,Minn-Dak and Southern Minnesota op-erations areas.

Of those acres reported upon, 93%were seeded to Roundup Ready beetsand 7% were conventional. Total sug-arbeet acreage treated with herbicidesin 2010 (accounting for multiple appli-cations) was 256%. That compareswith 230% in 2009, 308% in 2008 and383% in 2007. The reduction in thepercentage of total beet acreage treatedwith herbicides since 2007 is attributedto the increased planting of RoundupReady sugarbeets.

Nortron and Dual were the onlysoil-applied herbicides used in 2010 by

survey respondents. Soil-applied herbi-cide use for all beet acreage was just2% this past year. That compares with31% as of 2004 and 25% in 2007.

The most common herbicide treat-ment reported by growers in 2010 wasglyphosate applied at 0.75-lb acidequivalent per acre. Glyphosate plusStinger (8.4%) and glyphosate plus Se-lect (2.0%) were the most frequently re-ported combinations by growers withonly Roundup Ready beets in 2010.

The usage of postemergent grassherbicides (Select, Assure II or Poast)was on 32% of all reported acreage in

2010. That compares with 29% in 2009,104% in 2008 and 189% in 2007. Therapid decline in postemergent grassherbicide use since 2007 is due, again,to the rapid adoption of Roundup Readybeets. Select was used on 233% of the“conventional only” beet acres in 2010,a level that’s comparable to generalusage in pre-Roundup Ready years.

In a related category, only 1% of re-ported acreage in the 2010 survey washand-weeded — again, a reflection ofRoundup Ready beet plantings. Thatpercentage was 20% was recently as2008; 32% in 2002; and 45% in 1997.

THE SUGARBEET GROWER (Upper Midwest) February 2011 3v

Growers Report on 2010 Weed Control

* The annual production practices sur-vey is conducted, and results compiled,by Fargo-based NDSU/UM sugarbeetspecialists. Other survey portions dealwith entomology and plant pathology.

Can sugarbeets be grown profitablyin Minnesota? That’s a rather sillyquestion, of course, given that beets havebeen produced successfully in the NorthStar State for more than a century andthat Minnesota is, far and away, thenation’s leading beet-producing state.

But the industry obviously had toget its start sometime and somewhere.And the outcome, in the early days of itsestablishment, was far from certain.

Among the questions its first proponentshad to wrestle with were the availabilityand economics of the labor needed toproduce and process sugarbeets.

The following excerpt from an earlyUSDA publication titled “Report on theCulture of the Sugar Beet” spoke to thelabor issue, should beets be introducedinto the “Northwest” (i.e., Minnesota).This report was published 130 yearsago, in 1880.

One of the worst drawbacks to thesuccessful introduction of the sugar

beet in the Northwest would seem to bethe labor question. Even with the ad-vantage of the best implements to stirthe land, thin and clean the ridges, andgather the crop, the hand-labor neededto grow sugar beets is considerable.

“Wages being about three times ashigh in the Northwest as in Denmark,this would increase the expenses at agreat rate. Supposing one hand to beneeded for three acres of land for fourmonths, about 30 days’ work would benecessary to cultivate one acre. Sup-posing one acre to yield 15 tons of beetsor 2,400 pounds of sugar (8 per cent),30 days’ work at $1.50 a day, wouldmake $45 an acre, or $3 per ton ofbeets, or 18-3/4 cents per hundred-weight of sugar . . .

“And supposing the product couldbear such expenses, would it be possi-ble to gather a sufficient number ofhands so as to grow 1,500 acres of beetswithin the limit for the area of onesugar factory? For it is a deplorablefact that, at the present development ofthe industry, sugar cannot be manufac-tured from beets on a small scale, butmust be produced in large establish-ments which require the raw materialfrom a large number of acres. And, onaccount of the bulky quality of thebeets, they cannot bear long trans-portation, and must therefore be grownwithin a certain comparatively narrowdistance from the factory.

“Again, during the manufacturingseason, which only lasts about four orfive months, the factory would employ anumber of hands who, after all of thebeets have been disposed of, wouldhave to look for employment elsewhere.While at the time between the clearingof the beet land and the harvesting ofthe beets the regular harvest of the ce-reals might give employment to thebeet hands, would the forests of Min-nesota or other industry dispose of thelaboring hands during winter and earlyspring, until the beet field again mightneed them?

“Sugar beets should not be attendedto only when the other work of the farmis done and there is nothing else to do;but should be worked when they needworking. Without independent labor atthe proper time, their cultivation al-ways proves a failure.

“So also should the manufacture ofsugar begin when the beets are ripeand contain most sugar . . . .” �


Can Beets Be Grown in Minnesota...?

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) tookover the gavel of the Senate Agricul-

ture Committee on January 27. The

American Sugar Alliance issued the fol-lowing statement in response:

“Hailing from a major sugar-produc-

ing state, Sen. Stabenow has long beena vocal promoter of America’s no-costsugar policy. We are thrilled to have achairman who is so knowledgeableabout the issues facing sugar-growingregions across the country.

“But it’s not just sugar producerswho are happy. Sen. Stabenow is achampion of U.S. agriculture and ofrural America who has proven time andtime again that she values the hardwork and dedication of America’s farm-ers and ranchers.

“We look forward to working closelywith the chairman as she crafts a fis-cally responsible farm bill that ensuresAmerica maintains the world’s safest,most abundant, most affordable foodsupply.”

Stabenow is a member of the SenateSweetener Caucus, a group of outspo-ken supporters of U.S. sugar policy.“That policy operates at no cost toAmerican taxpayers, helps support146,000 U.S. jobs, and is essential tothe country’s food security,” the Ameri-can Sugar Alliance notes.

Home to one of the nation’s biggestsugarbeet companies and 900 sugarfarmers, Michigan boasts 147,000 acresof sugarbeets and more than 15,000jobs tied to the industry. �

Norton® is a registered tradmark of Bayer Crop Science

Call: 218-280-3793 or Email: [email protected]

TTHHEE KKIIEELL RROOWWFFIINNDDEERRControls both Steering and Depth, and is made to

Back-up with the Harvester Down

KKiieell IInnnnoovvaattiioonn CCoorrppoorraattiioonn1429 st. mary’s drive, crookston, mn 56716

NowAvailable for

Amity,Artsway, and

Parma !


Stabenow Now Senate Ag Comm. Chair

Make Plans to Attend the 49th

International Sugarbeet Institute

March 16 & 17Fargodome • Fargo, N.D.

Doors Open at 9:00 a.m. Both Days

— Our Speaker —Wed. Afternoon & Thur. Morning

Luther MarkwartExecutive Vice President

American Sugarbeet Growers Assn.

We Are the Manufacturer of the

DEE RowfinderProviding Parts, Sales & Service

Dealer In-quiries Wel-

come

CW Crookston Welding & Machine, Inc.

Highway 75 South • Crookston, M N 56716

(218) 281-6911 or

(800) 569-1309

The OnlyRowfinder on The Market To Control

BOTHSteering & Depth

• A full line of sprockets, rollers & idlers for harvesters.

• Carrier of heavy-duty roller chain.

• We build and repair grab rolls for beet harvesters;also plastic-sleeve them.

• Flails for sugarbeet defoliators . . . bearings . . .pillow blocks . . . drive lines.

• Complete line of keyed shafts and cold-rolled shafts.

• Gearbox exchange program for WIC defoliators.• Grab roll exchange for WIC harvesters.

When the Bierlein brothers —Warren and Brian — decided to

trade for a wider row-crop planter, theysimultaneously decided to switch fromtheir traditional 28-inch sugarbeet rowsover to 22s. So this past spring, insteadof planting their beets and other rowcrops with an 18-row unit, they did sowith a 58-foot-wide Bauer-built John

Deere DB58 that allowed them to seed32 (22-inch) rows at a crack.

But the changeover did bring alonga complication. How would the Vassar,Mich., growers be able to utilize theirpreferred tractor — a John Deere9400T Series track unit — to plant thenarrow-row beets? The tractor had notbeen suited for 28-inch rows due to its

30-inch-wide tracks. So how could it beworkable in 22s?

“We wanted to plant with a tracktractor to eliminate compaction,” War-ren relates. “But we didn’t want to buyan 8000 Series row-crop tractor; wewanted to utilize the 9400 Series thatwe already had.”

The solution? How about cutting agroove down the middle of the trackunder which the crop row could fit? “Imeasured the tractor and found thatthe center of the belt was about 1.5inches off the center” of 22-inch beetrows, Warren recounts.

The next order of business was acall to D & S Tires in Richmond, Ind.Could they gouge out a groove along thebelt center so that the track lugs wouldnot compress the crop row beneath it?

Tammy Scholz, manager of the D & S Richmond facility, told Bierleinthey’d never had a request like that —but yes, why not? So he hauled thetracks down to Richmond, where D & Scut a groove nine inches wide. Theground-out portion of the lugs ended upbeing flush with the belt.

The results were exactly what theBierleins had hoped for. The tractorweight remained on the lugs on eitherside of the groove, “but right in the cen-ter, there was no weight pressingdown,” Warren says.

The proof was in the pudding, as theBierleins’ 2010 sugarbeet plant standsand crop growth were excellent. Theychanged back to “regular” tracks on the9400 for fall tillage duties, but you canbet those groovy tracks will be back onin time for the 2011 spring plantingseason. — Don Lilleboe �

A ‘Groovy’ Modification Allows Michigan Growers to Utilize Their

Wide-Belt Track Tractor for Narrow-Row Beets

Left: Warren Bierlein stands next toone of the grooved belts that allowhim and brother Brian to use their JD9400T Series track tractor to plantbeets in 22-inch rows with their newBauer-built JD DB58 planter (below).

Pho

tos: Don

Lilleb

oe


Zone (strip) tillage in sugarbeets hasbecome notably more popular in re-

cent years across the beet-producingareas of Nebraska, Colorado, Wyomingand Montana. The system conservessoil, soil water and input energy com-pared to “broadcast” tillage systemsthat employ a moldboard plow, diskand/or chisel plow. Zone-till imple-ments also can be used to apply fertil-izer or Telone II at one or more depths

below where the seed will eventually beplaced. With some systems, the beetplanter can be positioned on the rear ofthe zone-till tool for a true one-pass

tillage-planting operation.A frequent question of zone-till pro-

ducers has been the depth to whichthey should adjust the shanks on theirzone-tillage machine when used forsugarbeet production. If the shank isoperated too deep, we needlessly wasteinput (energy) costs and limit the im-plement’s field capacity. The deeperthe shank is operated, the more clodsthat are often created and the more dif-ficult it is to completely close the shankmark deep in the soil. But if operatedtoo shallow, any undisturbed soil com-paction may limit root development orwater and nutrient movement in thesoil, thus restricting yield potential.

The objective of the study describedhere was to evaluate different zone-tillage shank operating depths and, inturn, to provide information on sugar-beet yield response for the benefit ofbeet producers.

The study was conducted in 2008,2009 and 2010 at the University of

Nebraska Panhandle Research & Ex-

Monopill SE sugar beet planters Plant your seed more effectively -precise seed spacing and placement -optimal spacing for higher yields -reduce seed use and technology user fees -robust yet light weight, low horsepower for early planting -population adjustment as you plant -individual row control

Ropa North America 1- 519-786-3025 www. ropanorthamerica.com or e-mail: [email protected]

Shank Depth for Zone Tillage in Beets

Report on a Three-Year Nebraska Study

By John Smith*

* John Smith is an agricultural engineerat the University of Nebraska PanhandleResearch & Extension Center, Scottsbluff.

Above: A “medium compaction”study plot area shows the difference in sugarbeet plant growth with zerotillage (left) and with zone tillage

shanks set at a 10-inch depth (right).

Pho

to: J

ohn Smith


tension Center near Scottsbluff. Thesoil type at this location is a fine sandyloam with 1.0% organic matter and 8.0pH. Corn was the previous crop for allthree study years, with the stalksshredded, disked twice and moldboardplowed (to a depth of 11-12 inches) inthe spring of each study year.

The fields were then roller har-rowed twice to firm the soil. Granularfertilizer (rates based on soil test) wasapplied between roller-harrow opera-tions. These operations, it should benoted, were made using a tractorequipped with flotation tires and whenthe soil was relatively dry — the intentbeing to minimize surface-applied soilcompaction.

Four zone-tillage shank depths (0, 5,10 and 15 inches) were applied, as werethree soil compaction levels (“none,”“moderate” compaction and “high” com-paction) after the second roller-harrowoperation. The compaction levels wereapplied at the soil surface, meaning thedegree of compaction would be expectedto decrease with distance from the sur-face.

The “moderate” soil compactiontreatment consisted of one pass overthe entire compaction plot area with anempty tandem-axle truck (weight of21,000 pounds). The “high” compactiontreatment consisted of a pass of thesame truck but with a near-rated maxi-mum load, for a total gross weight of52,000 pounds. Both truck passes weremade when the soil was relatively dry.Following the compaction treatments,the entire plot area (including the “nocompaction”) was tilled to a 2.0-inchdepth to achieve uniform planting seeddepth.

The zone-tillage machine was a six-row (22-inch row spacing) three-pointmounted Schlagel Till-N-Plant model,which used a 0.75-inch wide parabolic-shaped shank. Field speed was 3.5mph.

Shank depth was adjusted to main-tain correct operating functions for theadvance coulter, the wavy closing coul-ters behind the shank, and for the rearrolling baskets. The machine was notused on the “0” depth plots.

Following the zone-tillage pass, allplots received one pass with a machinewith individual rows of two rolling bas-kets (no shanks or disks). Its purposewas to break up any big clods left bythe zone-tillage machine and to firmthe seedbed, as the study intent was tofocus on shank depth, not seedbed ir-regularities.

After each year’s plot planting (tothe same Roundup Ready® pelleted va-riety), the field was sprinkler irrigated

as needed for high emergence. It alsowas roughened with a rotary hoe be-tween rows as needed to prevent winderosion, but was not cultivated. Weedswere controlled with three applicationsof glyphosate, Quadris® was applied tohelp control rhizoctonia, and the plotswere sprinkler irrigated for the dura-

tion of the crop season.Along with plant stand counts made

when emergence was considered com-plete, compaction effects were meas-ured with a soil cone penetrometer.Maximum resistance measurementswere taken with this instrument at foursoil depth ranges: 0-3, 3-8, 8-13 and13-18 inches. Beet root shapes were vi-sually rated at harvest.

What were the findings of thisthree-year zone-tillage shank-

depth study? The accompanying tables (see next

page) summarize the results in terms of

Committed to InnovationAmity Technology has a long history in the sugar beet industry. Our commitment to farming shows in the breakthrough technology we’ve developed to make farming more productive – cutting producers’ costs and increasing yields.

Our dedication to farming and the sugar beet industry goes back more than 70 years. E.G. Melroe, the grandfather of Amity founders Howard and Brian Dahl, was the founder of Melroe Manufacturing

manufactured implements was the harrow weeder – widely used by sugar beet farmers in the early days.

The Dahl family was also involved in the transition of Farmhand to WIC, now Amity Technology. The Amity sugar beet equipment line is the leader in sugar beet harvesting equipment in North America and throughout the world.

Amity Technology will always strive to bring the latest in sugar innovation to producers throughout the United States.

www.amitytech.com

A shank depth of 15 inches didnot increase beet yield, com-pared to the 10-inch depth, for

any of the soil compaction levels.


plant stand, root yield and sugar peracre.

Plant response to soil compactionand to tillage systems is notorious forhaving high variability. This study wasno exception. But there are severalclear messages from this study regard-ing (1) surface-applied soil compactionand sugarbeet yield, and (2) zone-tillage shank depth and beet yield:

• The sugarbeet plants in the high-compaction, “0” shank depth plots werevery small and unhealthy until mid-July. Based on the early growth, it wasvery surprising that root yield ended upas high as it did.

• Even moderate surface-appliedsoil compaction disfigured beet rootshape and reduced yield. High soilcompaction had an even bigger effect.

• In treatments with moderate orhigh surface-applied compaction, beetyield was increased by using a shankdepth of 5 inches, compared to no zonetillage (“0” depth). Increasing theshank depth to 10 inches further in-creased yield in high compaction plots.

• A shank depth of 15 inches did notincrease beet yield, compared to the 10-inch depth, for any of the three soilcompaction levels.

• Zone tillage did not completelyeliminate sugarbeet root yield reduc-tion caused by intentional moderateand high surface-applied soil com-paction. This might suggest runningthe shanks between old rows instead ofin the old rows when zone tillage fol-lows zone tillage and if soil compactionis present.

• Generally, soil compaction with asoil cone penetrometer resistance ofgreater than about 400 psi began to re-duce beet root yield.

• Each field should be examined forthe presence and depth of any soil com-paction prior to the zone-tillage opera-tion. In most situations, a shank depthof about 10 inches will be a good com-promise of several factors. �

Table 1. Plant Stand for CompactionTreatments, Averaged Over ShankDepths & Three Years (2008-10)

Table 2. Plant Stand for Shank Depth Treatments, Averaged OverCompaction Treatments, 2008-10

CompactionTreatment

None AppliedModerateHigh

None Applied34.532.333.831.4

None Applied10,90010,40010,90010,100

Moderate30.232.833.732.7

Moderate9,70010,50010,70010,400

High18.527.532.132.1

High5,8008,80010,30010,300

Shank Depth(Inches)

051015

Shank Depth(Inches)

051015

Shank Depth(Inches)

051015

Plant Stand/AcreAveraged Over Shank Depths

40,500 37,900 36,500

Plant Stand/Acre AveragedOver Compaction Treatments

38,90039,00038,20037,000Values that differ by less than 1,100 plants/ac are

not statistically different (p = 0.05).

Table 4. Sugar Yield (Lbs/Acre), Three Years Combined (2008-10)

Table 3. Sugarbeet Root Yield (Tons/Acre), Three Years Combined (2008-10)- - - Soil Compaction ‘Level’ - - -

- - - Soil Compaction ‘Level’ - - -

Values within a column that dif-fer by less than 2.5 tons/ac arenot statistically different.

Values within a row that differby less than 2.6 tons/ac are notstatistically different (p =0.05).

Values within a column that dif-fer by less than 900 lbs/ac arenot statistically different.

Values within a row that differ byless than 1,000 lbs/ac are notstatistically different (p =0.05).


Differences < 1,200 pl./ac are not statistically diff.

From the City Lights of Texas to SugarbeetFarming . . . — “Bill Cleavinger, president of the Texasand New Mexico Sugar Beet Growers Association, isn’tyour stereotype Texan. True, he’s a big boy, but he’s asoft, quiet spoken Texas who went into farming back-wards. ‘I was born in the city — Amarillo — and came tothe farm,’ Bill explains, which goes against the nationaltrend of boys leaving the farm for the bright city lights.

“The only time Bill raises his voice is when someonesays an unkind word about either sugarbeets or farmingwithin his hearing. Bill has an evangelist’s fervor when itcomes to extolling the importance of the sugarbeet indus-try. In fact, his desire to grow sugarbeets resulted in adifference of opinion with his father, with whomhe had a farming partnership, andBill’s going it alone as a successful,progressive sugarbeet farmer.

“Bill’s father had been a school-teacher while Bill was growing up inthe Texas Panhandle during the dustbowl days. . . . [After four years in theAir Force, Bill] returned to farming inpartnership with his father. . . . In 1964,when Holly Sugar Corporation openedits new 6,500-tons-a-day factory in Here-ford, Texas, Bill and his father came to aparting of the ways. Bill was eager togrow sugarbeets for the new plant, andhis father wanted to stay with the old es-tablished crops. So Bill was given the op-portunity to buy the farm from his father,who was the John Deere dealer in Canyon.

“Bill started into sugarbeets with 50acres at his farm near Wildorado, mid-pointbetween his birthplace of Amarillo and Holly’s factory.Today, Bill has 300 acres planted to sugarbeets. . . .”

Editor’s Note: Bill Cleavinger served as president ofthe American Sugarbeet Growers Association in 1987-89and was president of the Texas growers group from 1978 to1996. He passed away in 1997. The Hereford factory ofHolly Sugar Corporation closed in 1998.

American Crystal Vice President Proclaims U.S.Beet Sugar Industry ‘Alive and Well’ — “The U.S. beetsugar industry, despite continued economic pressures andfuture uncertainty, was proclaimed ‘alive and well’ byAldrich C. Bloomquist, vice president, American CrystalSugar Company, during the 62nd annual meeting of theAmerican Farm Bureau Federation in New Orleans, La.

“Addressing a group of AFBF delegates at the Mar-riott Hotel, Bloomquist said the beet sugar industry hasremained remarkably efficient and viable considering thedifficult financial climate of today.

“Bloomquist told delegates that Congress is expectedto address the issue of the Farm Program in 1981. Cur-rently there is no legislation covering sugar. ‘I anticipatethat Congress will include a section dealing with sugar inthe Farm Bill,’ he said. ‘My suggestion for such a pro-

gram is that it should be premised on the belief that sug-arbeet growers should be treated the same as growers ofall other major crops.’

“Bloomquist stated that the ‘old’ Sugar Act, which uti-lized production and import controls to achieve stableprices and supplies for U.S. consumers, had ‘served bothconsumers and the industry well’ before its demise in1974. Following that time, however, the sugar industryand consumers have witnessed wildly fluctuating priceswhich have precipitated the closures of 13 beet sugar pro-cessing plants since 1975.”

Sugar Price Support LegislationNeeded — “High sugar prices and predic-tions for a shortfall in world sugar produc-tion apparently will not be incentivesenough for U.S. sugarbeet growers andU.S. refiners to substantially increasetheir output during 1981, according toseveral industry sources.

“Representatives for growers andprocessors conceded that while currentworld prices and prospects for evenhigher prices are attractive andshould encourage greater output, theoverriding problem is that they haveno guarantee these higher sugarprices will be sustained over a pe-riod of time long enough to justifythe expense involved in expandingprocessing plants. . . .

“One industry economist said whensugar prices dropped from a high in 1974 of 46.7 cents tobelow 20 cents in 1975, 13 plants were shut down. How-ever, he said the recent increase in prices will not havethe opposite effect of leading to plant growth.”

Future Crops May Withstand Stress Better —“The ability of future crop varieties to withstand short-term stress, such as abrupt weather changes, could be im-proved if a new theory on photosynthesis proves true,reports the U.S. Department of Agriculture. John W.Cary, a soil scientist with the USDA’s Science and Educa-tion Administration, Kimberly, Idaho, has isolated fourfactors that, individually or in combination, can limit pho-tosynthesis. . . .

“It will probably be a long while before plant geneti-cists can compensate for any of these four limiting factorsthrough selective breeding. However, Cary’s work has al-ready proven beneficial for future studies of plant growthresponse to stress periods. . . .

“Yields of plants such as sugarbeets, wheat, barley,beans and corn are extremely sensitive to photosynthesis— the ability of plant leaves to fix or utilize carbon diox-ide. . . . For example, in sugarbeets a 20 percent increasein average annual photosynthesis can boost root yields 27percent, while a 20 percent decrease can cut yield by morethan 35 percent.” �

30 Years Ago Excerpts from theFebruary 1981 Issue ofThe Sugarbeet Grower


Canada’s beet sugar production has evolved from severalplants to one located in Alberta. The bulk of Canadian sugarsupplies come from imported raw cane sugar processed atthree refineries, located in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver,respectively. The resulting refined sugar is marketed to indi-vidual buyers in the retail market and mainly to large cus-tomers in the country’s beverage and food industry.

Corn sweeteners are produced in eastern Canada andcompete in sweetener markets with sugar. Canada is also amajor producer of maple syrup and honey, with exports goingmainly to the U.S. market. Canada has recently initiated anethanol program to mix ethanol with gasoline, using cornand wheat as the major feedstocks.

Sugarbeet Production Higher

Of total sugar demand for sugar in Canada, about 10%consists of beet sugar. Canada’s sugarbeet production is con-centrated in southern Alberta. In 2010, Alberta growers con-tracted with the Lantic Inc. (formerly Rogers Sugar) Taberplant for a total of 30,000 acres. The Taber plant has a cur-rent daily slice capacity of 7,000 tons.

The 2010 harvest began in early September, with factoryprocessing commencing in late September. According toLantic officials, a total of 30,360 acres of sugarbeets wereharvested in Alberta in 2010, yielding 573,640 (metric) tonsof beets. This compares with 29,174 acres and 613,376 tonsfor the most recent five-year annual average (Table 1). Thebeet sugar produced is marketed as “Rogers Sugar” in thewestern areas of Canada. The price paid to growers variesconsiderably and depends on the world sugar market price.

As in U.S. sugarbeet districts, key byproducts of the re-fining process for Alberta beets are dried beet pulp and beetmolasses. Dried beet pulp is sold throughout westernCanada as a highly nutritious feed for livestock. Beet mo-lasses is sold as a liquid feed supplement for livestock or asan important feedstock in yeast production.

In addition to Alberta, 9,500 acres of beets were planted

in 2010 in the southwestern tip of Ontario. These beets aretransported across the border into eastern Michigan, wherethey are processed at Michigan Sugar Company’s Croswellfactory. Ontario producers also have an ownership stake inMichigan Sugar, which became a cooperative in 2002.

Canada’s sugarbeet industry operates under an open-market policy and has never had a national sugar price sup-port program. However, in 1987 the National TripartiteStabilization Program was established to protect sugarbeetgrowers from fluctuating open-market prices. It was a cost-share program funded equally by the federal government,the provincial government and beet growers. In 1996, Al-berta growers opted out of the program, as its benefits wereseen to be too minimal to justify further participation.

A Significant Sugar Importer

The bulk of sugar supplies are imported into Canada atworld raw sugar prices for refining and sale. During the pastfive years, raw cane sugar imports have averaged 1.26 mil-lion metric tons. Leading suppliers were Brazil, Guatemalaand Australia, which together accounted for three-fourths ofthe total (Figure 1).

The three refineries in Canada that refine imported rawcane sugar are as follows:

• Rogers’ Vancouver refinery services western Canadaand has a daily melting capacity of 1,000 tons, along withstorage capacity for 30,000 tons of raw sugar and 14,000 tonsof storage for refined sugar.

• The Lantic refinery, owned in part by Rogers Sugar, islocated in Montreal and services eastern Canada. It has a

* Peter Buzzanell is the director of Virginia-based Peter Buz-zanell, LLC. Prior to his retirement from USDA, he was headof the Sugar & Sweetener Analysis Unit at that agency’s Eco-nomic Research Service.

Sugar, HFCS &Ethanol in Canada— An Overview —About 10% of Nation’s Sugar Production Comesfrom Domestically Grown Beets; Remainder fromImported Raw Cane Sugar Refined in Canada

By Peter Buzzanell*

Table 1. Alberta Sugarbeet Area, Yield & Production

2005/062006/072007/082008/092009/102010/11

HarvestedAcreage33,61636,79134,06518,16123,23530,360

Beet YieldMetric T/A19.926.225.121.222.718.9

ProductionMetric Tons668,141963,165853,669385,219526,686573,640

Av. SugarContent (%)

19.118.518.118.518.118.6

Pho

to: D

on Lilleb

oe / La

ntic In

c. Sug

arbe

et Fac

tory, Tab

er


Source: Lantic Inc., Taber

daily melting capacity of 1,900 tons anda storage capacity of 55,000 tons of rawsugar and 10,000 tons storage for re-fined sugar.

• The third refinery is the Redpathfacility located in Toronto, which serv-ices mainly the heavy population andsugar using industries in Ontario.

Redpath is the largest Canadiansugar refinery, with a rated daily melt-ing capacity of 2,160 tons, for an an-nual capacity of more than 700,000tons. This refinery has a storage ca-

pacity of 60,000 tons of raw sugar and9,000 tons for refined sugar. In 2007,the refinery was sold by Tate & Lyle toAmerican Sugar Refining, Inc. Logisti-cally, Redpath has to plan for the an-nual closing of the port of Toronto dueto ice buildup. The port is closed toshipping from December to mid-April,so the refinery needs to store raw sugarfor refining during the winter season.

Canada also imports a small volumeof refined sugar each year. Refined im-ports, mainly from the U.S., averagednearly 48,000 tons annually during thepast five years (Figure 2). Due to “rulesof origin,” Canada’s U.S. refined sugartariff rate quota (TRQ) imports of10,300 tons are supplied by the Taberfacility since that sugar is Canadiangrown and processed. Under the “first-come, first served” rule for the globalportion of the refined sugar TRQ —7,090 tons — Canadian refineries canparticipate, as the refined sugar doesnot have to be Canadian origin.

With respect to the in-quota amountof 64,709 tons for the TRQ on certainsugar-containing products (SCP) main-tained under the Harmonized TariffSchedule of the United States, the U.S.government allocates 59,250 tons toCanada. According to staff at one of

the Canadian refineries, they take ad-vantage of this SCP quota for Canadaby shipping a significant volume of icetea mix, greater than 10% sugar, annu-ally to the U.S. market.

Sweetener Consumption,Demand Diverse

Canada utilizes the full range ofsweeteners: sugar, corn sweeteners andhigh-intensity sweeteners. In addition,maple syrup and honey are produced

miltonplanters.com1-800-859-0399 – Starco MFG, Inc.

INCREASE YIELDNOT ACREAGE

With Milton’s Accuracy, Versatility & Dependability!

ers com

The Milton n Precision Planter offers the perfect combination of accuracy, versatility and dependability, in a planter that’s also competitively priced.

With interchangeable seed wheels and drive gears, the Milton n can be used to plant virtually all small seed crops, including onions and sugar beets.

And the narrow design can be configuredto plant 4” rows to increase your yield, not your acreage!

Figure 1. Canada Raw Sugar Import Sources, Av. 2005-09

Figure 1. Canada Refined Sugar Import Sources, Av. 2005-09

Annual Average: 1,261,445 metric tonsSource: Internat’l Sugar Organization

Annual Average: 47,851 metric tonsSource: Internat’l Sugar Organization


and widely used and exported. Sugarconsumption in Canada is fairly steadyat 1.4 million metric tons (Table 2).The nation has a population of about 34million which is largely located alongthe U.S. border. Ontario alone has apopulation estimated at 13 million, 38%of the national total. Three cities —Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver —total 11 million people, one-third ofCanada’s entire population. Sugar con-sumption patterns for the bulk of thepopulation mirror those in the U.S.

The retail-direct consumption mar-ket represents about 16% of total use,and its selling price is comparable to

that in the U.S. Ac-cording to Canadiansugar industry repre-sentatives, per-capitasugar consumptionhas been steady foryears, and the indus-try relies on popula-tion growth toexpand its market.Canada’s large Asianimmigrate populationdoes not constitute asizeable share of thedirect consumptionmarket, reflecting anon-tradition of bak-

ing and heavy direct sugar use. This isin contrast to the traditions of the rap-idly growing Hispanic community inthe U.S.

Industrial users represent about84% of total sugar use and are a grow-ing market. The confectionery industry,in particular, is a large and growing in-dustrial user of sugar. While the do-mestic market has grown, sugar forproducts to be exported has expandedgreatly. For example, Canadian confec-tionery exports climbed from $370 mil-lion in 1996 to $1.35 billion in 2008.

The sugar industry faces competi-tion for industrial markets from cornsweeteners. Canadian industrial cornis widely grown; however, Ontario andQuebec are the largest producers withmore than 350 million bushels har-vested annually. Canada is also a sig-nificant importer of U.S. corn.

Virtually all of the carbonated softdrink market is sweetened by high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), thoughsome small soft drink plants may stillbe using some sugar.

The largest producer of HFCS andother corn sweeteners in Canada is theCASCO Company, a division of CornProducts’ International. CASCO hasthree corn refining facilities in Ontario— Cardinal, Port Colborne and London— that produce high-fructose and glu-cose syrups used to sweeten a variety ofproducts, including beverages, bakedgoods, canned foods, ice cream and can-dies. Dextrose is used for its lightsweetness, texture, bulking and color ina variety of food and confectionery ap-

plications. Corn oil is used in cookingand as an ingredient in margarine.

While CASCO markets these prod-ucts mainly in Canada, the Port Col-borne plant also produces HFCS for thenortheast U.S. For diet products, suchas diet soft drinks, aspartame has beenpermitted for use as a food additive inCanada since 1981 and is the mostprominent. It is also used in desserts,breakfast cereals and chewing gum. Inrecent years, Canada has approved theuse of other high-intensity sweetenerssuch as acesulfame-k and sucralose,which now compete in the marketplacewith aspartame.

Canada is a major producer and ex-porter of maple syrup. Quebec is themain producing province, and its out-put has nearly doubled in recent years.Imports from Canada supplant the an-nual U.S. domestic shortfall, accordingto USDA. Of Canada’s total maplesyrup exports, nearly one-half isshipped to the U.S. Canada is also asignificant producer and user of honey.Annually, Canada is also one of theleading sources of U.S. honey imports.

New Ethanol Initiative

Canada recently embarked on anethanol program with the goal of in-creasing its domestic production anduse. On December 15, 2010, the Cana-dian government’s Renewable FuelsStandard officially came into force. Officially, 5% of the gasoline Canadianspump into their vehicles is nowethanol. This renewable transportationfuel, using corn and wheat as the pri-mary feedstocks, is designed to reducetransportation-related greenhouse gasemissions. Plans are to build and ex-pand plants to develop capacity to ap-proximately 1.0 billion liters per year.

Biodiesel is also expected to expandwith implementation of a requirementfor 2% renewable content in diesel fuel.According to Environment Canada, reg-ulating renewable fuel content in gaso-line is just one of several steps thegovernment is taking to reduce green-house gas emissions in the transporta-tion sector, which account for about aquarter of those emissions. Support forrenewable fuels is seen as support forfarmers, rural communities and theeconomy, Canada’s minister of agricul-ture has noted.

The Canadian Renewable Fuels As-sociation touts ethanol and biodieselplants across Canada. Some are alreadyin operation; others are in the planningstage. The goal is to reduce Canada’stotal greenhouse gas emissions by 17%from 2005 levels by 2020. �

Buying or SellingBeet Stock?

800.279.3200, ext. 3402alerusagstock.com

The Alerus advantage: Current market pricing Signed written contracts Escrowed funds Assistance with transfer documents

The leader in sugarbeet stockbrokerage since 1994.

This information does not constitute an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell. The products offered (1) are not FDIC insured, (2) are not deposits or other obligations of a bank or guaranteed by a bank and (3) involve investment risks, including possible loss of principal amount invested. Alerus Securities is a wholly owned subsidiary of Alerus Financial.

Member FINRA & SIPC

Table 2. Canadian Sugar Consumption & Trade

2005200620072008200920102011*

Consumption

1,4251,4251,4251,4201,4201,4201,425

Imports

1,3121,3881,2591,3651,2041,5001,395

Exports

378939108243595

- - - - - - 1,000 Metric Tons - - - - - -

* ProjectedSource: International Sugar Organization


Canadian per-capita sugarconsumption has been steadyfor years, and the industry relies on population growth

to expand its market.

Downard Joins Betaseed Station at Kimberly, Idaho

Betaseed, Inc., has named RobertDownard as research agronomist andassistant stationmanager for thecompany’s WesternSugarbeet Re-search Center inKimberly, Idaho.Downard is respon-sible for supervis-ing all activitiesassociated withseed production,including steckling production. In ad-dition he will assist with management

of the Kimberly station.A Twin Falls resident, Downard

holds an M.S. degree from Utah StateUniversity. He has more than 10 yearsof experience in sugarbeet seed and re-search activities, most recently as anagriculturist with Amalgamated SugarCompany.

28th International SweetenerSymposium Is July 29-Aug. 3

The 28th International SweetenerSymposium, hosted by the AmericanSugar Alliance, has been scheduled forJuly 29 to August 3, 2011, at the StoweMountain Lodge in Stowe, Vt. Prelimi-nary event information is on ASA’s

website — www.sugaralliance.org —with more program and registrationdetails to become available this spring.

Traditionally, about 400 people at-tend the symposium to hear abouttimely, significant issues affecting thesweetener industry and to interactwith industry colleagues. This year’sevent is sure to include a look ahead tothe next farm bill, as well as discussionof the U.S. and world market supply-demand outlook and the effects ofmultinational, regional and bilateraltrade agreements on world sugar poli-cies and U.S. commodity programs.

Stowe is located in north centralVermont, about 45 minutes fromBurlington. �

Allan Cattanach may well bemaking sugarbeet history in Marchwhen he assumes the presidency ofthe American Society of Sugar BeetTechnologists (ASSBT) during thegroup’s biennial meeting in Albu-querque, N. Mex. That’s not uniquein itself, of course. But Cattanach isalso the president of the Beet SugarDevelopment Foundation (BSDF),making him, it appears, the only in-dividual to ever serve as president ofboth organizations consecutively.

Tom Schwartz, executive vicepresident of Denver-based ASSBTand BSDF, says a similar situation“has not occurred in my tenure,which began in 1988. I do not thinkit occurred prior to that, either.”

Cattanach, American CrystalSugar Company’s general agrono-mist, brings a strong familiarity withboth groups to his role as president.He has served as an American Crys-tal director on the BSDF board since2003 and has been an active memberof ASSBT since 1975, twice servingon its board during that period. Cat-tanach, who became BSDF presidentin 2010, has been chairman of thatorganization’s project review commit-tee since its inception in 2004.

A graduate of the University ofWisconsin, Cattanach went on to

earn an M.S. degree from NorthDakota State University and a Ph.D.from the University of Minnesota,both in soil science. After serving

with the NDSUExtension Serv-ice as extensionagent in Pembinaand Renvillecounties, he be-came extensionsugarbeet spe-cialist withNDSU/UM in1975. Cattanach

joined American Crystal in 1998 asits general agronomist.

“I have traveled with Allan onmany occasions, both domesticallyand internationally,” says Schwartz,“and found him to be known through-out the sugarbeet world and recog-nized for his wide knowledge ofsugarbeet production. I’ve enjoyedworking with Allan this past year ashe was president of the Beet SugarDevelopment Foundation, and lookforward to the next two years of hispresidency with the American Societyof Sugar Beet Technologists.”

The Beet Sugar DevelopmentFoundation’s membership consists ofsugarbeet processing companies fromthroughout North America, along

with beet seed suppliers. BSDFworks closely with beet researchgroups within the USDA AgriculturalResearch Service, providing bothfunding and recommendations on theobjectives and nature of ARS sugar-beet-related research. BSDF alsosponsors the McGinnis Institute ofBeet Sugar Technology, a factory-fo-cused educational program conductedat Colorado State University, and theBeet Sugar Agricultural School, asugar company agriculturist-focusededucational program held annuallyat rotating institutions in sugarbeetproduction regions.

BSDF also has been actively in-volved in the Sugar Industry BiotechCouncil in recent years.

The American Society of SugarBeet Technologists, whose Albu-querque gathering is its 35th bien-nial meeting, encompasses sugarbeetand beet sugar researchers fromUSDA, universities and industrycompanies. ASSBT seeks to “fosterall phases of sugarbeet and beetsugar research [and] to promote thedissemination of resultant scientificknowledge.” The biennial meeting —at which researchers present numer-ous papers in the areas of (1) agron-omy, (2) entomology and plantpathology, (3) physiology, biotechnol-ogy, genetics and germplasm and (4)chemistry/instrumentation and fac-tory operations — is a major ASSBTpriority. The group also publishesthe Journal of Sugar Beet Research.

Mr. President, Times TwoCattanach to Serve Consecutively as Prexy of BSDF & ASSBT

Allan Cattanach

Robert Downard

Around The Industry


Documents

Sugarbeet Grower magazine February 2011